The Ontario Superior Court has ruled that an employee who continued to work for 15 months following a change in his terms and conditions of employment had not condoned the change and could claim damages for constructive dismissal. Read more about this surprising decision and key lessons for employers to learn in our Latest Update.
Related Posts
Compliance with the new Employment Standard under AODA – Jessica Young
By: Jeremy Schwartz and Frank Portman A recent French language decision from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice indicates that…
This is segment 1 of 5 from our Q3 webinar held on Thursday, October 10, “Upcoming AODA Obligations – What You Need…
Many employers prepare written employment agreements that limit employee entitlements on termination of employment. In the absence of an enforceable…
In a unique set of circumstances, the Ontario Superior Court recently found that changes to an employment contract which benefited…
By: Landon Young and Jessica Young Non-unionized employees are entitled to “reasonable notice” of termination under the common law, or…
A recent WSIAT decision considered the question of the impact of payments received by a worker receiving loss of earnings benefits upon…
Don’t miss our May 16 Webinar:
Frank discusses how to best ensure you may rely on disciplinary records to prove just cause
Employers are often told by their lawyers that satisfying a Court that there is “just cause” to terminate an employee…
A recent decision, the Court of Appeal, Mady Development Corp. v. Rossetto, clarified an employee’s entitlement to bonuses who has breached…
A recent decision by the British Columbia Court of Appeal highlights the importance of carefully crafting written employment agreements whenever shares are…
It is becoming increasingly difficult for employers to understand what language is required in order for a termination clause to…
Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act: What Employers Need to Know Now – Jessica Young
Allison Taylor discusses the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision which outlined a new, balanced test for family status discrimination…

